World: r3wp

so ... now might be correct time for him to post some ideas :-)

Actually, the issues he had with Draw were with the host interface 
design, not the plugin intterface design.

Did we ever reach a conclusion about Rebol scripts .. and to distinguish 
R3 vs R2 scripts?

rebol3 [ ] or using a 'needs ?

Needs.

Which has been expanded to also import modules.

Does R2 recognise the 'needs ?

The version part, yes.

I also use .r3 extension

There's nothing enforced about that, but it's good practice, and 
file association friendly.

I use about 10 different rebol extensions already...  10 more for 
R3 version   ;-)

aren't those numeric r extensions used by rar ??

.r03

They 0-pad.

RAR already switched to another naming convention, so we should still 
be good by the time REBOL 10 comes out :)

that's very reassuring.

we should skip R4 and go directly to R10  or should it be ... RX 
 ;-)

The prescription for what ails your systems? :)

are the linux versions generally as up-to-date than the windows ones?

More or less. The linux and osx versions are much more alpha than 
the windows versions. Lots of missing functionality.

' :-(

There's lots of missing functionality on windows too, just different 
stuff. Windows is the primary platform until the host code gets released, 
which should be soon now.

This is what I get when I try to upgrade on my Ubuntu 8.10 box:

>> upgrade
Fetching upgrade check ...

Script: "REBOL 3.0 Version Upgrade" Version: 1.0.0 Date: 7-Apr-2009
Checking for updates...

R3 current version: 2.100.54.4.2 
It was released on: 16-May-2009/22:45:17 

You need to update R3.
Download new release? yes
Downloading...
** Access error: protocol error: "Timeout"

** Note: use WHY? for more about this error

>> why?
Opening web browser...
Couldnt get a file descriptor referring to the console
>>

Try it again - the server may have been busy. The HTTP scheme isn't 
as good as one would like yet.

Still no success. Could be my Internet connection, which has been 
horrible lately.

Works for me, but I'm on Windows so platform differences may apply 
:(

** Access error: protocol error: "Timeout"

Have you tried downloading manually from the web site? There were 
problems in a53 with permissions. That would be a different error 
on Windows, buut who knows?

rebol.com?

Please keep trying. It may time out 10 times in a row and then it 
comes.

http://www.rebol.com/r3/downloads.html

Thanks, Brian. Done.

.

http://www.rebol.net/r3blogs/0206.html

Details about R3 plugins.

posted some questions to blog article ....

So, you're asking if the plugin model will still follow the initial 
stated base requirements for a plugin model? :)

What are all the types of procedures calls that R3 will support. 
 I'm assuming that pass by value and pass by reference will be there 
but what other forms?

Carl hasn't revealed that yet - which is why I keep asking for "in 
depth" explanations. This is another of those cases where Carl goes 
into a cave and comes out with something that is (usually) awesome. 
Design mode. He hasn't gotten to explanation mode yet.

Ok, thanks Brian.

The "new evaluation model" of the command! type is what I find most 
interesting. That would be the only way to do other forms, but there 
isn't enough info out there to know whether it does.

I don't understand your comment Brian. I am simply asking for R2 
DLL interface, but improved. I can understand that there is probably 
no need to introduce more than one way of how to interface external 
environment, but then I want R2 DLL like interface being a plugin. 
Of course, this capability is so basic though, that I want it inside 
of REBOL.exe

Brian: could such a "new evaluation model" help with something like 
rebcode replacement? :-)

The problem is that the R2 DLL interface sucked. One of the base 
requirements of the R3 plugin model wass that it be powerful enough 
that you cold write a generic wrapper dialect as a plugin, and then 
use that dialect to specify the API a DLL.

yes, that is what I want.

Of course that wouldn't be as good as actually writing a custom plugin 
for the DLL (or more likely using one that someone else wrote).

As for other blog - Objects as a base type ... is there any implication 
what it means for object semantics? IIRC you expected some changes 
in object semantics, but Carl states, that other types as ports, 
tasks, etc. share the implementation, so I wonder if you can really 
expect any change here?

To write a rebcode replacement all you need is user-defined types 
and the knowhow - it's on my todo list. However, user-defined types 
will probably need to be defined in plugins, and at the very least 
we couldn't even specify how to define them without a working plugin 
model. So it will help, indirectly :)

Objects as a base type blog = documentation of the way things have 
always been, not a sign of things to come. It was probably in response 
to bug#838 and my reply to it.

Once you have plugins and commands, there may be less need for rebcode! 
- you can just write natives if need be. The reason for a rebcode 
replacement then would be security (not rebcode's strong suit), since 
rebcode would be managed code.

security (not *the old* rebcode's strong suit)